ISLAMABAD:
The Constitutional Bench (CB) of the Supreme Court has observed that court martial should not be mixed up with martial law as the latter is completely unacceptable and an extraconstitutional measure,
A seven-member CB led by Justice Aminuddin Khan on Thursday resumed hearing the intra-court appeals filed against October 2023 order of a Supreme Court bench that declared trial of May 9 rioters in military courts null and void.
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) submitted its written arguments to the court. According to the submissions, the SCBA held a meeting on March 5 to deliberate on its stance regarding military courts.
The association stated that, in principle, civilian trials should not be conducted in military courts. It further noted that the provisions of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 have been upheld as constitutional in judicial interpretations and cannot be declared void at this stage.
The SCBA said terrorism has intensified and that Pakistani citizens deserve peace and harmony. Therefore, all constitutional and legal measures should be directed toward eradicating terrorism.
Representing the Lahore Bar Association and the Lahore High Court Bar Association, lawyer Hamid Khan argued that the Pakistan Army Act was introduced in May 1952 when Pakistan was governed under the Government of India Act.
He said the country’s first constitution was enacted in 1956, introducing fundamental rights for the first time, adding that the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 was first amended in 1967.
He said the first conspiracy case in Pakistan, the Rawalpindi Conspiracy Case, was initiated in 1951.
Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi noted that even figures like poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz were implicated in the Rawalpindi Conspiracy Case. Continuing his arguments, Hamid Khan stated that to prosecute the accused, the Rawalpindi Conspiracy Special Trial Act of 1951 was introduced.
The objective of the conspiracy was to establish a communist system in Pakistan. The accused included both military personnel, such as General Akbar Khan, and civilians. However, their trial was not conducted in a military court but under a special tribunal.
At this point, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail questioned the relevance of these historical examples to the current military trial case, asking what connection the imposition of martial law had with the present case. “The Constitution does not allow for martial law,” he added.
